From 2efc0b7c5978d1a965de2d25f76daa216efc5894 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sylpheed RE agent Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:34:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20backlog=20=E2=80=94=20tie-break=20refut?= =?UTF-8?q?ed=20six=20ways;=20residual=20is=20one=20blend=20on=20one=20scr?= =?UTF-8?q?een?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- docs/re/BACKLOG.md | 24 +++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/re/BACKLOG.md b/docs/re/BACKLOG.md index d8339597..6d037032 100644 --- a/docs/re/BACKLOG.md +++ b/docs/re/BACKLOG.md @@ -123,11 +123,25 @@ See [`structures/ui-composable-bundles.md`](structures/ui-composable-bundles.md) `include_primitives` stays off by default. A capture of any screen carrying one would close it. See [`structures/ui-prm-primitives.md`](structures/ui-prm-primitives.md). -* ❔ **The tie-break.** Elements sharing a layer key are painted in an order - nothing predicts — the title's `0x8083` ×5 group paints `14,15,18,16,17` and - the `0x80a0` ×7 group paints `0,2,4,7,1,3,5`. Now the *only* thing between the - derived order and the measured ones, so it is the next cheap static probe: - three measured screens' tied groups against every remaining field. +* 🟡 **The tie-break — refuted six ways, and its cost measured** (2026-08-19). + Elements sharing a layer key: on the **menu and splash** every tied group comes + out in declaration order, which the stable sort already gives. The **title** is + the only screen that discriminates and nothing predicts it (`0x8083` ×5 paints + `eff1, eff2, eff5, eff3, eff4`). Refuted: declaration order, RATC child order, + first keyframe time, resting time, resting X/Y, and `T8aD` header words `+00` + `+04` `+0c` `+10`. RATC child order is a *strict improvement* (7 misplaced + positions instead of 9, and it recovers the logo grouping) and is exact on the + other two screens — **not adopted**, because on the one screen that can tell + them apart it is still wrong. + **What it costs, exactly:** of 3 disagreeing pairs of drawn elements across all + three screens, 2 share opaque pixels — `ptlogo_back2eff5` vs `eff3` (22 568 px) + and vs `eff4` (32 395 px). The residual is one element's blend on one screen, + and it is pinned by a test. The third pair (`ptlogo2` vs `ptlogo_tm`) overlaps + by bounding box but shares no opaque pixel; a box test called it a defect and + the alpha says otherwise. + **Next:** it is one element on one screen, so the cheap move is a fourth + measured screen with a tied group — not more static guessing at fields that + have all now been checked. * ❔ **Blend mode.** Everything is straight alpha-over. The near-white flash quads (`0xf0ffffff`) and coloured ones (`0x60ff0000`) may be additive. The title capture cannot separate the two — its resting elements are all